Supply of RD-180 rocket engines to the US to be cut off?

[Grey Havoc]

http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Russian_rocket_engine_export_ban_could_halt_US_space_program_999.html

 

[Grey Havoc]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/09/russia-threatens-ban-sale-space-rocket-engine-us-sanctions/

 

[Hanse]

Good.

 

[Mark Nankivil]

I'll second that! Mark

 

[Orionblamblam]

I'll second that! Mark

Thirded. Geopolitics aside, it's best to know how to do this sort of thing yourself.

 

[merriman]

How is Bezos' BE-4 coming along?

David

 

[seruriermarshal]

SpaceX

 

[TomS]

How is Bezos' BE-4 coming along?

David

BE-4 only replaces RD-180 if and when Vulcan replaces Atlas. You can't just swap it into existing rockets because it burns methane, not kerosene.

 

[Hobbes]

SpaceX

They're unlikely to sell their engines to a competitor.

 

[Hanse]

SpaceX

They're unlikely to sell their engines to a competitor.

That's not what he's saying.

 

[Hanse]

How is Bezos' BE-4 coming along?

David

BE-4 only replaces RD-180 if and when Vulcan replaces Atlas. You can't just swap it into existing rockets because it burns methane, not kerosene.

I thought the AR-1 was designed to also be a 2 for 1 swap on Atlas? ???

 

[Hobbes]

SpaceX

They're unlikely to sell their engines to a competitor.

That's not what he's saying.

Maybe not, but at the moment he's just illustrating the drawback of overly-terse answers.

 

[TomS]

I thought the AR-1 was designed to also be a 2 for 1 swap on Atlas? ???

Yes, it is. AR-1 is the only potential direct "drop-in" replacement for the RD-180 in development, AFAIK, and it seems to be an open question whether it's actually going to happen. Aerojet Rocketdyne certainly doesn't seem inclined to spend its own money on AR-1 now that ULA has decided on BE-4 for Vulcan. (Yes, ULA claims AR1 is a backup for Vulcan, but swithcing means tearing up most of the design work and starting over, since methane tankage and kerosene tankage are not interchangeable.

BE-4 is ticking along, but it only replaces RD-180 if Vulcan actually replaces Atlas. I'm not holding my breath on that either. It seems like Vulcan keeps sliding right at about one year per year.

 

[Flyaway]

The AR-1 is reportedly 18 months behind the BE-4.

I thought the AR-1 was designed to also be a 2 for 1 swap on Atlas? ???

Yes, it is. AR-1 is the only potential direct "drop-in" replacement for the RD-180 in development, AFAIK, and it seems to be an open question whether it's actually going to happen. Aerojet Rocketdyne certainly doesn't seem inclined to spend its own money on AR-1 now that ULA has decided on BE-4 for Vulcan. (Yes, ULA claims AR1 is a backup for Vulcan, but swithcing means tearing up most of the design work and starting over, since methane tankage and kerosene tankage are not interchangeable.

BE-4 is ticking along, but it only replaces RD-180 if Vulcan actually replaces Atlas. I'm not holding my breath on that either. It seems like Vulcan keeps sliding right at about one year per year.

 

[Moose]

The next LSA phase was supposed to have a selection by now, which may/should tell us more about where things are going.

Industry consultant Charles Miller, president of NexGen Space, speculated that ULA may have left the decision up to the Air Force. “My guess is that Tory is basically letting the Air Force choose his engine for him,” Miller told SpaceNews. ULA could have offered two options for Vulcan, one with the Aerojet engine and one with the Blue Origin engine.

Miller said he is fairly certain that Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket will be a player in national security launch. “The Air Force will want to use New Glenn. It is going to buy New Glenn services once it’s flying and reliable.”

An interesting theory I've come across is that the USAF may select AR-1 for Vulcan in the belief that New Glenn will eventually arrive with BE-4 even if BO looses out on Vulcan, and thus provide the redundancy of 3 vehicle families (Falcon, Vulcan, NG) with 3 separate engine lines. I think they'd have to deal with some pushback if they went this route, but it would certainly preserve/support the widest industrial base possible.

 

[Hanse]

An interesting theory I've come across is that the USAF may select AR-1 for Vulcan

It's not their decision to make is it? I'd think that'd be 100% ULA's call.

 

[Moose]

An interesting theory I've come across is that the USAF may select AR-1 for Vulcan

It's not their decision to make is it? I'd think that'd be 100% ULA's call.

It's 100% ULA's call, and if they want to go to USAF and say "pick which one you want on it so we know you're gonna buy this vehicle" that's a completely valid route to take.

 

[Hanse]

An interesting theory I've come across is that the USAF may select AR-1 for Vulcan

It's not their decision to make is it? I'd think that'd be 100% ULA's call.

It's 100% ULA's call, and if they want to go to USAF and say "pick which one you want on it so we know you're gonna buy this vehicle" that's a completely valid route to take.

It's not like the USAF would tell them no if ULA chose the BE-4. What are they going to do, grant SpaceX all of their launches from there on out? Sounds tinfoily.

 

[yasotay]

"You can have any color you want, as long as it is black" - Henry Ford

 

[fredymac]

It seems that neither Boeing nor Lockheed can accept the Spacex business model and attempt to emulate their corporate culture even in the limited context of space launchers. I get the feeling they reject the concept of high speed/high risk/vertical integration as a means to achieve rapid technical advances at lower cost.

Vulcan starts out much more expensive than Falcon and has no roadmap to fully catch up in the future. They are pinning their hopes on the belief that Spacex is illegitimate (they can't possibly sell launches at $60M) and will go bankrupt. In the meantime, New Glenn will be coming on-line (no doubt with its own publicly spectacular learning lessons) and will provide the alternate launch source the Air Force wants.

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/NASA_Reveals_How_It_Would_Stay_Afloat_Without_Delivery_of_Russian_Rocket_Engines_999.html

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/US_Working_Hard_to_Cease_Reliance_on_Russian_Rocket_Engines___NASA_999.html

 

[Hanse]

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/US_Working_Hard_to_Cease_Reliance_on_Russian_Rocket_Engines___NASA_999.html

Gotta love clickbait.

Title: "NASA Reveals How It Would Stay Afloat Without Delivery of Russian Rocket Engines"

Second paragraph:

"NASA has declined to comment on how exactly it would react to a possible halt in the supply of Russian rocket engines "

 

[Grey Havoc]

I included that link at the last moment since it seems to be that the article writers are actually saying that NASA doesn't actually have a plan at all at the moment, loud reassurances notwithstanding.

 

[Hobbes]

NASA just buys launches from a variety of LV providers, if one of those providers wants to take themselves out of the market by not having a plan for this very high-visibility contingency then how is that NASA's problem?

 

[Hanse]

NASA just buys launches from a variety of LV providers, if one of those providers wants to take themselves out of the market by not having a plan for this very high-visibility contingency then how is that NASA's problem?

Yep. As long as NASA has a way into space (via Space X, the Delta IV, Ariane, etc.) they're good.

 

[TomS]

Sounds like AR1 is functionally dead except as a pork-barrel project.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/09/financial-document-reveals-vulcan-rocket-engine-competition-is-over/

The latest financial release from aerospace manufacturer Aerojet Rocketdyne reveals that the company spent none of its own money on development of the AR1 rocket engine this spring. Moreover, the quarterly 10-Q filing that covers financial data through June 30, 2018 indicates that Aerojet may permanently stop funding the engine with its own money altogether—a sign the company has no immediate customers.

Although Aerojet will continue to receive some funding from the US military through next year to develop its large, new rocket engine, this money won't be enough to bring it to completion. Instead of having a flight-ready engine for use by the end of 2019, the filing indicates that Aerojet now intends to have just a single prototype completed within the time frame.

 

[Hanse]

Not surprising given the availability of the BE-4.

 

[Moose]

ULA has officially selected BE-4 to power the Vulcan Centaur.

The BE-4 design was selected over Aerojet Rocketdyne’s AR1 system, ULA announced Thursday. Two of the engines, each capable of 550,000 pounds of thrust, will power the boost vehicle.

“We are pleased to enter into this partnership with Blue Origin and look forward to a successful first flight of our next-generation launch vehicle,” said Tory Bruno, ULA CEO, in a statement (ULA is a joint venture of Lockheed Martin and Boeing).

Aerojet Rocketdyne — which in 2015 considered a bid to buy ULA outright for a reported $2 billion, before being rejected by Boeing and Lockheed — isn’t locked out entirely on the program, however, as the company’s RL10 engine for the Centaur’s upper stage. After the announcement, Aerojet CEO Eileen Drake tweeted out, “We’re excited to be part of the #Vulcan team, with our RL10C-X engine powering the upper-stage. The RL10 has been the nation’s premier high performance upper-stage engine for decades.”

 

[Hanse]

That's pretty interesting. In the not so distant future most major US launch vehicles will be methane fueled. New Glenn, BFR, and now Vulcan.

 

[Moose]

We may not have the best-smelling rocket industry, but it will get your payloads up there.

 

[Hanse]

We may not have the best-smelling rocket industry, but it will get your payloads up there.

Just puttin' all them cow farts to work.

 

[TomcatViP]

Oh, in case of urgency, you can do that with household waste. And don't read that only as something written by a French.

 

[Orionblamblam]

We may not have the best-smelling rocket industry, but it will get your payloads up there.

Pedant Mode ON: Actually, methane is an odorless gas. The smell normally associated with natural gas is due to "odorants" added to let you know there's a leak. Rockets wouldn't use those.

 

[Moose]

We may not have the best-smelling rocket industry, but it will get your payloads up there.

Pedant Mode ON: Actually, methane is an odorless gas. The smell normally associated with natural gas is due to "odorants" added to let you know there's a leak. Rockets wouldn't use those.

I was intending to allude to the sent associated with biological methane sources, for the sake of humor, not industrial odorants. But you do you.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I was intending to allude to the sent associated with biological methane sources, for the sake of humor, not industrial odorants. But you do you.

I know not of this "humor" of which you speak. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.